I want to see the average rating of those who study chess (those who buy chess book or regularly do chess analysis), and those who do not.
So if you want to you can post that you do study chess (and what you do to study) and post your rating as well. And if you don't study chess you can still post your rating, I just want to see the rating difference between those who study chess and those who do not
Me? I don't really study the game, but I have done the Chessmaster Academy one time on 'Chessmaster 10th Edition'. And as of right now my rating is 1556, though I'm expecting it to go up because I can beat high 1600s in blitz
I don't really have time to study with my degree, and I waste enough time with chess as it is (should be writing an essay now), so all I do is occationally look over old games, and get confused by them as I can't work out why any move is better then another. Don't really think that counts. I also try chess problems rarely, but more in summer holidays. Anyway, I'd say no I don't study and my rating is 1472. My blitz is terrible.
My study time is mostly devoted to tactics and a bit on endgames. My RHP rating is about 1825. To me, chess is all about finding a tactical shot and/or reaching a winning endgame. Someone once said that if your rating is below 2000, then your first name must be 'tactics,' your middle name 'tactics,' and your last name 'tactics.' Openings are interesting, but you gain more from studying tactics than you do from studying openings.